>> such great people who could use our help. and if you know someone great who deserves to be a cnn hero, tell us about them. nominations for 2020 are open, and we're waiting to hear from you. go to cnnheroes.com to nominate right now. thanks for watching. our coverage continues. good evening. we're just days away from what will almost certainly be just the third impeachment of a u.s. president ever. what is at issue tonight isn't just the propriety of what president trump did, it's the trivialization and debasement of truth. what seems to be the most prominent defense the president and his defenders are using as of tonight. i'm john berman in for anderson. today the president of the united states talked about this morning's vote in the judiciary committee, a party-line affair that sets up a final vote in the house that looks likely to happen on wednesday. it is an historic moment with deep and important implications. yet the president could only say, it's a witch hunt.

it's a sham. it's a hoax. you're trivializing impeachment, he said. then about 60 seconds later, the man so concerned with trivializing impeachment and the pursuit of facts and truth, laid a whopper. he claimed the favor he was asking of ukraine in that july 25th phone call wasn't for him. no, the "us" he was referring to when he asked ukraine's president to, quote, do us a favor was actually us, the country. that's right. you and me. take a listen. >> you said, do me a favor. no, it didn't say that. it says do us a favor, our country, talking about the past election, talking about corruption. >> kind of tortured, don't you think? he wants you to believe he was putting country above self and pursuing a potential 2020 opponent for wholly patriotic reasons. oh, and when he says he was talking about corruption, it's worth noting that in two phone conversations with president zelensky, he never said the word "corruption," not once.

never said the word. incidentally we'd be remiss if we didn't point out that on this friday the 13th, that the man responsible for pursuing those biden allegations, rudy giuliani, was back at the white house today. we'll have that story later in the program. right now we want to stick with the trial ahead for donald trump because while this debasement of truth starts at the top, it doesn't end there. listen to what republican -- one republican congresswoman told cnn's manu raju when he asked about the president wanting to investigate a foreign leader. >> why is it ever okay for an american president to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival? why is that okay? he didn't do that. >> he did ask zelensky -- >> he did not do that. >> this is getting exhausting. he did ask. from the rough transcript of the conversation with president zelensky, quote, there's a lot of talk about biden's son, that biden stopped the prosecution

and a lot of people want to find out about that. so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. oh, yeah, and if you don't believe the transcript, take this guy's word for it. >> well, i wrote think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the bidens. it's a very simple answer. they should investigate the bidens. and by the way, likewise china should start an investigation into the bidens because what happened in china is just about as bad as what happened with ukraine. >> and by the way, that last line about china, he volunteered that. he was asked about ukraine and the bidens. he answered and later in his response, he just says basically, and china should too. so it's not like you have to probe deep or in some cases even ask if he did it. he'll tell you he did it. but while president trump and the party try to twist and distort the facts into something they are not and while they try

to escape their own words they said themselves on camera, there is one thing tonight president trump cannot escape. he is the fourth person to have articles of impeachment get this far. andrew johnson, richard nixon, bill clinton, and now donald trump. with more, let's check in with the chief white house correspondent jim acosta. so, jim, the president not only weighed in on today's vote, but he also talked about a possible senate trial. what did he have to say about that? >> reporter: that's right, john. i think it's starting to sink in with the president that he is about to be impeached. impeachment is coming. he was asked about some of these issues earlier today over here at the white house, and he was asked about this prospect of a senate trial. that obviously comes after he is impeached in the house. and there has been this debate going on back and forth between the white house and republicans up on capitol hill as to whether or not a senate trial is a good idea. i will tell you i talked to a source familiar with the discussions going on inside the white house, who said that the president is starting to listen to some of the counsel coming

from his attorneys, saying that a shorter trial would be better, would obviously remove the possibility to some extent that there would be unforeseen bombshells emerging in a senate trial. and you heard the president sounding open to that idea. here's what he had to say earlier today. >> i'll do whatever i want. look, there is -- we did nothing wrong. so i'll do long or short. i've heard mitch. i've heard lindsey. i think they are very much in agreement on some consent. i'll do whatever they want to do. it doesn't matter. i wouldn't mind a long process because i'd like to see the whistle-blower, who is a fraud. the whistle-blower wrote a false report. >> so you hear the president still pining over this idea that he'd like to have a lengthy trial in the senate where he can bring in people like hunter biden and the whistle-blower and so on. but he is running up against a lot of opposition in the senate. i talked to a couple of republican officials up on capitol hill. they're almost pleading with the president to go with a shorter trial, and according to one official, you can't find any senator right now who wants a

lengthy trial in the senate. they want to get this over with as soon as it gets out of the house. >> jim, even if the president is open to the idea of a short trial today and he sounded like it, there are several weeks to go, so he could change his mind roughly 516 times, couldn't he? >> reporter: that's right. he could do that by this weekend. but i think at this point, here is the way it's playing out. i think you're going to have a conversation happen, and this is already starting to take place where the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, is talking to the white house counsel's office, other officials inside the white house as to how this is all going to play out. but listen, john. if he has republican senators saying to him, do not have a lengthy trial in the senate, do not bring out these witnesses that you might think will play well on fox news, it may not play well with the rest of the country. and, you know, one of the things that the president has to entertain -- and i think this is an important point -- is that these republican senators who are pleading with him to have a shorter trial are ultimately the ones who are going to have to decide his fate.

so he's going to have to make this calculation over the next couple of weeks as to whether or not he wants to greatly disappoint the very senators who are telling him to keep it short, keep it brief. not something he is prone to do. but i will tell you, john, i talked to a trump adviser earlier this evening who said, this is a president who will come out of this impeachment process, quote, unquote, unhinged. that this will be a very different president trump. if you feel like he's, you know, bothered by his grievances now, wait until he's impeached in the house and acquitted in the senate. this adviser is saying get ready for a brand-new, even more aggrieved president trump heading into the 2020 cycle as this process plays out, john. >> interesting that source felt that unhinged would be something different. jim acosta at the white house, thank you for being with us tonight. >> you bet. joining me now is democratic congressman steve cohen who sits on the judiciary committee. congressman, thanks so much for being with us. your chairman, jerry nadler, described today as, quote, a sad and solemn day. i wonder how you would describe

it. >> well, it is sad in terms that we have a president who has committed offenses against the constitution. the constitution is our -- that's our guide. that's what we live by. that's our law. it's 200 and something years old, and the founding fathers did a great job, and we're supposed to -- we take an oath to obey it, and we had a president who betrayed his oath and risked our national security and tried to corrupt our election process. and that's a sad day when a president does that and doesn't understand it, and it's even a sadder day when all of the republicans went along with him and refused to see what was right before their faces that he did it. >> let me ask more about that because it does appear near certain that the articles of impeachment will pass the full house, but they'll pass the full house without any republican votes there either. and i do wonder because there

are a couple dozen, maybe more republicans who aren't running for re-election. these are people who don't have to satisfy their base. so what does it tell you that these retiring members, who don't necessarily have anything to gain, are going to vote against impeachment? >> well, for one thing they have to live within the caucus for the rest of the time they're there. you know, justin amash came out against the president and said that he was for impeachment. they put him out of the caucus. they stripped him of his committees, and they put him out of the caucus. so these people have got another year in the republican house caucus, and they probably don't want to get put out, stripped of their committees, and scorned. and then when they leave their job, some of them might have ambitions to get an appointment from this president, assuming he gets a second term. i don't think he will, but they probably think he might, and certainly that's a better ticket for them than a democrat winning, and they don't want to

be on the outs then. but, you know, that's just two kind of craven political reasons why they may be there. and then, you know, they just may -- i've never been in a republican caucus. they may just take kool-aid communion every day. >> so mitch mcconnell, who is the senate majority leader, spoke last night about the senate trial. listen to what he said. >> everything i do during this, i'm coordinating with white house counsel. we'll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the white house counsel's office and the people who are representing the. . i i'm going to coordinate with the president's lawyers, so there won't be any difference between us on how to do this. i'm going to take my cues from the president's lawyers. >> so some democrats are raising red flags about this saying basically you're having the jury coordinate with defense lawyers there. but tom daschle, who was the

minority leader during the clinton impeachment trial told cnn today that during the clinton impeachment saga, his staff was in contact coordination with the white house. so how is this any different? >> well, i'm not sure exactly what it was, but i can guarantee mitch mcconnell stole a supreme court justice that barack obama should have had, merrick garland, from him, and who stole a whole bunch of district court judges and mine. my nominee, ed stanton iii, a year out he didn't approve a district court memphis and a bunch of people after him. so mitch mcconnell will do whatever he can do to manipulate the process to his advantage. and i would suspect that what he does will be different than what daschle does, and they'll try to stack the deck. the whole idea of not calling witnesses, which i've heard is a

possibility, having the case put on for a week and having a case put on by the other side for a week and then calling the question, getting the vote, and getting out is not right. they should have a trial. there should be witnesses. there should be the opportunity to see what you just told the people there of trump getting on the white house lawn and going, i want ukraine to investigate. they should investigate joe biden. china should investigate hunter biden or joe biden. they should have those videos played in the senate for the senators and for the public as well to remind them of what went on. mulvaney, this is the way it is, get used to. they need to have all of that, and they should have more. they should have fiona hill, dr. hill, ambassador taylor and ambassador yovanovich, lieutenant colonel vindman, have some of their testimony. they were shocked. they are independent foreign service officials. they are american patriots. they had no political thing in this at all. they risked their careers to testify and to immediately say

this was wrong. >> congressman steve cohen, thanks for joining us tonight. we always appreciate your time, sir. >> you're welcome. i saw you this morning. nice to see you tonight. >> we're working a long day but it's worth it. appreciate it. coming up, what will be the contours of president trump's defense in any senate trial? i'm going to speak with alan dershowitz and jeffrey toobin about all that. and later, tracking the elusive rudy giuliani. he actually showed up at the white house today days after his most recent trip to ukraine, and there's a stunning report on what the president did as soon as giuliani landed back in the united states. that's ahead tonight. man: sneezes skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

the wait is over. t-mobile is lighting up 5g nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles...

beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. up here at the dewar's distillery, all our whiskies are aged, blended and aged again. it's the reason our whisky is so extraordinarily smooth. dewar's. double aged for extra smoothness. must be hot out there, huh? not especially. -[ slurping continues ] -what you drinking?

gasoline. right, but i mean, what's in the cup? gasoline. [ slurping ] for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

as jim acosta reported earlier in the program, president trump's lawyers have been trying to convince him a senate trial of any considerable

length is risky. but if recent history tells us anything, it's that the president can change his mind in a heartbeat in that he may not listen to all his advisers that closely anyway. joining me now is alan dershowitz. a source familiar with the matter tells cnn that he, dershowitz, is informally advising the president's legal team and is expected to handle some of the constitutional aspects of the defense in a senate trial. he's also the author of "guilt by accusation." in addition he's a professor emeritus at harvard and here with me, cnn senior legal analyst, chief legal analyst, in fact, jeffrey toobin, a former student of professor dershowitz. just some housekeeping here. to the extent you can talk about it, can you clarify what if anything your role is, either formally or informally with the president's impeachment defense? >> no, i really can't talk about it at this point, but i can tell you that the advice i've given the president in public on television and in my op-eds is to go for a very short

constitutional defense focusing on the inadequacies of the two charges. and particularly after today, the supreme court today granted cert in three cases, indicating that they're going to review the subpoena power of both congress and the prosecutor. and it seems to me that substantially undercuts the second article of impeachment that basically says you obstruct congress if you refuse to comply with subpoenas absent a court order. so i think the president's constitutional arguments were strengthened today, and he'd be well advised, i believe, to limit himself to those constitutional arguments. >> number one, the court says they will rule in june. that's a long time from now. number two, the president said something relatively unprecedented, which is that no one should cooperate in any way at all. like zero cooperation, which is unprecedented. that aside, professor, you do have another defense too.

you suggest that congress is just making things up. what's your evidence for that? >> the constitution itself. there was at the constitutional convention a proposal to include maladministration as a ground for impeachment and led by madison. it was rejected on the ground that it would make it too easy for congress to have the president serve at the will of congress and would turn us into a parliamentary democracy where a vote of no confidence is enough. so instead they put in fairly specific criteria -- treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. now, obviously the word "misdemeanors" has been subject to some debate, but you can't interpret misdemeanor to mean pretty much exactly what the framers rejected at the constitutional convention. so i do think -- >> well, says who? >> they're trying to make it up as they go along. >> says who, because jeffrey toobin, high crimes and misdemeanors is taken by many to

mean, including alexander hamilton, who was at that convention that professor dershowitz is talking about, taken to mean a violation of public trust. >> well, and the kind of offense that only a president can commit. that's why this misconduct is so much at the heart of what the framers meant by high crimes and misdemeanors because you or i, alan, we can lie under oath. we can rob a bank. but we cannot withhold money from ukraine in return for political help in our campaign. the only person who can do that, who can violate his oath and violate the -- and abuse power is the president, and that's why this is so much at the heart of what the framers meant by a high crime and misdemeanor. >> no, i disagree. i think what the framers did is they had a prerequisite. there had to be one of the four

prerequisites. after that, they could still decide not to impeach if they didn't think it was an abuse of power. and if you read what hamilton said in federalist 65, he basically lists the criteria, and then he said, these are important criteria because they reflect an abuse of power. but abuse of power was rejected and terms like that as explicit grounds -- >> no, they weren't. >> -- for impeachment. >> that's not -- abuse of power was not rejected. >> yes, they were. >> and, alan -- >> the word maladministration. >> maladministration is being a bad president, doing bad things and you're right. that is not a ground for impeachment. but, you know, getting us into a bad war in iraq is not a ground for impeachment. but if you withhold money that congress has appropriated for the sole and exclusive reason of getting dirt on your political opponents, that is precisely an

abuse of power. >> but i can name you 20 presidents that have abused power under those criteria. president kennedy going after people through the irs. president lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus, president roosevelt confining 110,000 japanese-americans. every controversial president has been accused by his political opponents of abuse of power. and if you give congress the ability to impeach a president and remove him based on vague concepts like abuse of power, you're really turning us into a parliamentary democracy. these are the issues that are going to be debated, and there's no perfect answer. none of us can get into the minds of framers. but i've read extensively in the history of the constitutional convention and the federalist papers and it's certainly my considered view that the framers wanted specific criteria, not open-ended ones like abuse of power. >> that's not true. >> which can be weaponized by either party against the other.

>> that's not true. >> you say it, and i say it is. >> we also heard from three constitutional lawyers and even jonathan turley didn't suggest that the framers of the constitution had an explicit list of crimes that you have to commit in order to be impeached. the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in fact does mean something specific at that time and it includes any violation or breach of public trust. that's why alexander hamilton talked about that in the federalist papers. there's ample evidence of the fact that that's the case. there's also ample evidence of the fact -- and jeffrey, you can talk about this -- that one of the primary concerns that the founders had in writing the constitution was undue foreign influence in u.s. elections. and this seems to be the invitation for such a thing. >> that's right. and, again, it's the kind of misconduct that only a president can commit. and that goes to count two as well, the obstruction of congress.

you know, yes, it is true if it were one subpoena that the president did not comply with. but to say to congress, i will not cooperate at all. i will not give you one witness. i will not give you one piece of evidence, you know, email, document, i mean that is precisely the kind of blanket refusal that you can't say to the congress, well, go sue me, and maybe it will be resolved sometime in 2020, 2021. come on, alan. >> yes, you can. in fact, i do that every day when i represent people, and i'm not the president. what i say to prosecutors is, i'm not giving you one bit of evidence. i'm not cooperating. i'm not allowing my person to come in. the burden is on you. you have to prove your case. and i don't obstruct justice by doing that. the president is entitled as head of the executive branch -- >> your clients take the fifth. there is a separation of powers between coordinated branches of government.

it's an entirely different scenario. >> i know, and it's much more powerful because the separation of powers is in the body of the constitution itself. >> right. >> not in the amending process. and the separation of powers crucially allows the head of the executive branch to challenge every legislative action and leave it to the courts to decide. alexander hamilton in federalist 78 said that the courts are the umpires between the two branches. >> but -- >> and that's what president trump -- >> but other than having the chief justice preside over a senate trial, there is no role for the judiciary outlined in the impeachment process. jeffrey, very quick last word. ten seconds. >> i'm looking forward to alan defending the president on the floor of the senate. not exactly what i expected. not exactly what i expected in your criminal law class, that that's how you would culminate your career, but hey. >> thank you very much for being with us. up next, where in the world is president trump's tv lawyer, rudy giuliani? a new report on how he is escalating his push to investigate the bidens and what

he claims he's going to do after his trip last week to ukraine. giuliani has racked up a lot of sky miles on behalf of the president. we'll dig into all of this in just a moment. with advil liqui-gels, you have fast-acting power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength and speed of advil liqui-gels. what pain? for every family going home for the holidays, there are countless people working to help them get there. thank you to everyone we rely on to get us home to the ones we love. ♪ december 13th through the at pets20th... save up to 50% on holiday toys and treats. cuddler dog beds are only $9.99 plus this weekend, bring in your family and pets for a free photo with santa. now at petsmart!

too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com. i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease.

then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

as we mentioned earlier, the president got into this mess in part due to his tv lawyer and bagman rudy giuliani. and right on cue just before the house judiciary committee approved the articles of impeachment against trump, giuliani showed up at the west wing of the white house. in fact, he just wrapped up another trip to ukraine that he's touting as beneficial to the president. seemingly unfazed by the impeachment fight according to giuliani himself, he and the

president are still coordinating, trying to dig up dirt on the bidens. "the wall street journal" reports that giuliani is putting his findings from last week's trip into some 20-page report and he wants to brief lawmakers on it. it's unclear what, if anything, giuliani truly found in his travels. the bidens have denied any wrongdoing. here's what we do know. since president trump was elected, giuliani has traveled the world for his own consulting business or on behalf of the president, sometimes both. this map from "the wall street journal" shows his stops. they include three stops in ukraine, also visits to spain, colombia, bahrain and other destinations. joining us for more on this is rebecca ball house. she shares the byline on this "wall street journal" story. so, rebecca, rudy giuliani at the white house today. you report that he says his relationship with the president, rather than getting weaker, has only grown stronger through all this. >> that's right. what he told us is he feels like their bond has strengthened in some ways because the president feels like the same thing has

happened to him as has happened to rudy. rudy is under investigation now by manhattan federal prosecutors, and he's also obviously a big part of the impeachment inquiry, and i think that the president feels like he's sort of gone through this before with mueller and now again with impeachment, and according to rudy, sort of feels like they're in this together. >> you also have this terrific piece of reporting about the call that giuliani says he received immediately after landing back in new york from his trip to ukraine. what can you tell us about that? >> that's right. so he says that as he was taxiing down the runway in new york on saturday after a trip that included stops in kiev, in budapest, in vienna, and in rome, that the president called him and said, what did you get? and rudy told -- rudy giuliani told him, more than you can imagine. and this was actually shortly before the president came out and talked to reporters on the south lawn of the white house that day and said that he heard that rudy giuliani had found plenty on his trip and that he would brief the attorney general and congress on his findings.

>> plenty and more than we can imagine. but how much do we actually know about this report that he's putting together? >> what we know is that he said it's going to be 20 pages long. we don't know what it will say, but i would expect it to say a lot of the sorts of things that giuliani has said before. we know that he spoke to several of the same officials or former officials that he's spoken to previously, like the former prosecutor general lutsenko, another former prosecutor viktor shokin. so we don't know that he necessarily spoke to anybody new here and that he's necessarily going to come back with different information than he's been saying so far. >> and there's also a documentary -- and i use that word loosely -- about all this that he's somehow involved in. what's going on there? >> so he's filming a series with one america news network, and that was part of his trip to ukraine and hungary last week was that he was filming these interviews with these former prosecutors for this network.

and the point of this series is to sort of make the case for the investigations that he's been pushing for this whole time. but he told us that in addition to doing interviews for that series, he also did a lot of interviews for his own investigative purposes on this trip. >> so according to your reporting, friends of giuliani have been advising him to keep a low profile during all the investigations. he doesn't seem to be taking that advice. >> no. i think it's fair to say he is not taking that advice. and we did see there was a period, i would say, for about a month in the middle of this where we did kind of see him quiet down. in the very beginning, he was on fox news every night. he was tweeting all the time. he was butt dialing reporters or intentionally dialing reporters. and then there was a time where he did get a little bit quieter and he stopped going on tv as much. now i think we've seen him get right back into it where he's sort of online all the time, and you hear him everywhere. >> finally, what about the

notion that the president could possibly push giuliani aside? what does giuliani have to say about that? >> he's convinced it's not going to happen. he says the president never threw his people under the bus. he in fact has a hard time of getting rid of people and that he's gotten no sign of that. the one thing i would note is while the president has been extremely heaping praise on his lawyer for the last couple of weeks, he did say one telling thing in an interview with bill o'reilly where he said that he didn't direct giuliani to do any of this work or this effort to push for investigations in ukraine that he's been doing. so he clearly is trying to distance himself in some ways from what giuliani has done, but he hasn't parted ways with him or distanced himself fully yet. >> rebecca ballhaus, great reporting. thanks so much for being with us tonight. >> thanks for having me. just ahead, the president yesterday attacks a 16-year-old girl online. and this afternoon the white

house finally tries to explain why, emphasis on "tries." that's next. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite.

oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive.

tonight we've discussed the notion of making clear errors in judgment, then trying to trivialize the conduct. that's exactly what the white house has done today in the wake of a controversial tweet that exposed a 16-year-old girl to the kind of conduct no self-respecting person, least of all the president of the united states, should perpetuate on a child. it all began thursday upon hearing climate activist greta thunberg was named "time" magazine's person of the year, president trump responded with a petulant, some would say jealous tweet. quote, so ridiculous. greta must work on her anger management problem, then go to a good old-fashioned movie with a friend. chill, greta, chill. now, this is not the first time the president has gone after greta thunberg, and keeping them honest, there are a few things to point out here. first, that anger management line, it's well known that greta

thunberg has asperger's syndrome and something she calls a gift. those with it are as smart as eloquent as others but may be obsessive on topics. and basically the president, donald trump of all people, is accusing her of not handling her emotions well. second, it's simply an indeence way to respond tow anyone. it's small ask cruel. third, this tweet comes just a week after he and the first lady claimed outrage after they claim someone had mocked their child, barron, also a teenager, after a witness made a pun involving barron's name. this is how the first lady responded. quote, a minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. pamela karlan, you should be ashamed of nur very angry and obviously bias the public pandering and using a child to do. professor karlan apologized that day. no apology from the president. only silence from the first lady, who has allegedly made

stopping cyberbullying as one of her priorities as first lady. be best is the name of her campaign. instead we now have this statement today via the white house press secretary. quote, be best is the first lady's initiative and she will continue to use it to do all she can to help children. it's no secret that the president and first lady often communicate differently as most married couples do. their son is not an activist who travels the globe giving speeches. he is a 13-year-old who wants and deserves privacy. that's not even a non-apology apology. in fact, there's no contrition at all in that statement. of course barron deserves privacy, but that doesn't mean greta thunberg deserves to be bullied by the president of the united states. the previous first lady, michelle obama, weighed in last night. greta thunberg, don't let anyone dim your light. you have so much to offer us all. ignore the doubters and know that millions of people are cheering you on. and ignore the doubters she has.

this is colonelly the buyer on her page. a teenager working on her anger management problem, currently chilling and watching a good old-fashioned movie with a friend. proving the best way to handle a bully is to take the high road and in doing so make them look small. here today, cnn senior political analyst kirsten powers. thank you so much for be withing us. still no official comment from the first lady herself but i wonder what you make of this statement from the white house. >> well, i agree that her son should be given privacy, but i don't think because anybody is an activist frankly that means that the president of the united states should be able to attack them in such personal terms. and so i would say regardless of her age, that would be true. but because she is a teenager, you know, i think that it's extra true. and i also think the way that he attacked her -- i mean you pointed out, you know, it was clearly an attack on her way of communicating, which, you know, probably has something to do

with her having asperger's, but also i think it has a lot to do with her being a girl or a young woman because the complaint basically -- and there's been more than one tweet against her, and his complaint seems to be that she's not cheerful enough or smiling enough, that she's too angry. you know, she is upset. a lot of people are upset about climate change in the world, and she has a right to be upset. and there's this idea that nice girls just sit and smile and are compliant. that seems to be sort of the message that he's sending. >> and, again, you know, barron deserves his privacy. no one's saying he doesn't. but just because greta thunberg gives public speeches doesn't give the president or anyone license to bully her, right? >> exactly. i mean he shouldn't bully anybody, right? i mean he's the president of the united states. that goes without saying. but i think there is, you know, something when you have, you know, a young activist who is speaking up that i think if you want to disagree with them, i mean i personally don't think

the president should probably be getting in arguments with 16-year-olds. but if he wanted to disagree with her on the merits of what she was saying, i think people would probably say, fine, as long as it's done in a respectful manner, but that's not what he's doing. he's mocking her and he's ridiculing her, and he's making fun of her, and it's just -- it's so beyond the pale of what any person should do, but he is the president of the united states. >> it's cruel, and it's small, period, coming from anybody, but especially the president. one of the questions is why. you suggest sexism may be at play here. but another part of the why is that thunberg was named the "time" magazine person of the year. >> exactly. >> that just seems to get under the president's skin because this is a guy who made fake "time" magazine covers of himself and put them up at at least five of his golf clubs. >> again, being jealous of a 16-year-old when you're the president of the united states is pathetic. it's really -- it's hard to

imagine frankly when you've reached that level of accomplishment of being the president of the united states, and you're mad at a teenager for being on the cover of "time" magazine and getting person of the year. it's just -- but there's no question that that's what obviously got under his skin. i mean he already has tweeted against her because he doesn't like her cause. but like i said, i also do really think there's a sexest strain to it, that his tweets have very much been like, oh, seems like a really happy girl, right? why should she be happy when she's talking about something that's a catastrophe, a global catastrophe that's not what you would ever say about a 16-year-old boy who was speaking up on an issue. >> there's also some irony here of the president pointing out anger. he's not exactly known as a paragon of calmness, is he? >> yeah. well, i mean he's the sort of the king of projectors, right? so he tends to accuse people of doing what he's doing.

and so, you know, he sees anger because he's angry. i mean i think that that's typically he's telling us, this he's angry that she's been given an honor that he thinks that he should get. now, why he wants it, i don't know, because he says all the media are fake and lying, so why do you really care what they think? but for some reason he really does, and he has always coveted that. >> great to talk to you this evening. have a great weekend. so the former governor of kentucky, matt bevin ignites a big time controversy by pardoning or commuting the sentences of hundreds of prisoners, some convicted of violent, heinous crimes. the fallout when 360 continues. phones down. r we need a solution. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never.

smartdogs are not the answer. but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico. and everyone has dad's eyebrows! we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so apparently, we come from a long line of haberdashers, which is a fancy word for... they left everyone, and everything so they could get here. and start this family. every family has a unique story. this holiday season, help your family discover theirs. this holiday season, the holidays are here and so is t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal.

and we want to keep you connected with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, your family or your small business. keep everyone connected and hurry into t-mobile today, to get up to 4 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile. december 13th through the at pets20th... save up to 50% on holiday toys and treats. cuddler dog beds are only $9.99 plus this weekend, bring in your family and pets for a free photo with santa. now at petsmart! ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun

♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪

let's check in with chris to see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. what do you have? >> always a pleasure, j.b. the big question is what was rudy doing? i'm not talking about the substance, i'm not talking about what he has because they don't seem to understand, the president was impeached for how it was done, not the underlying substance or anything about

burisma. what is rudy's role? is he really his lawyer, personal or campaign? did he give away the work? okay. if he's just a political operative, what about the corruption bent? it all comes back to rudy. not that he's the problem but it's proof of what this president did. we're going to unpack it with a good friend of the president and a democrat trying to make the case for impeachment and we'll take you all the way through. >> what message was he trying to send walking before the cameras minutes before the impeachment vote before the judiciary committee? >> we have the goods. it was never about biden being dirty. it's about how you went about it. if you just don't want your hands on the stink so you want ukraine to carry the water, that's what this looks like, that's the impeachment. >> we'll see you in a few

minutes. so kentucky's former governor issued hundreds of commutations, one for a man who sexual assaulted a 16-year-old boy and a drunk driver who killed a pastor and his wife. the details and outrage when "360" continues. [farmers bell] ♪ (burke) a "rock and wreck." seen it. covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ i'climate is the number 1ove priority.sage. i would declare a state of emergency on day 1. congress has never passed an important climate bill, ever.

this is a problem that continues to get worse. i've spent a decade fighting and beating oil companies... stopping pipelines... stopping fossil fuel plants, ensuring clean energy across the country. how are we going to pull this country together? we take on the biggest challenge in history, we save the world and do it together. too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com.

creais back at red lobster.ast with new creations to choose from; like rich, butter-poached maine lobster and crispy crab-stuffed shrimp rangoon. how will you pick just 4 of 10? it won't be easy. better hurry in. skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief.

oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

the former governor of kentucky did not leave quietly. he issued hundreds of pardon and commutations. some to people who committed violent offenses. the total so far, as many as 161 pardons and 400 commutations of sentences. bevin said he personally reviewed each case. more from cnn's natasha chen. >> reporter: before walking out of the mansion this week, former

governor matt bevin pardoned this man, a man who killed a pastor and his wife, a woman who threw her newborn in a septic tank at a flea market, and this man who raped a 9-year-old girl and served less than 18 months out of his 23-year sentence. the victim's mother said it's a slap in the face. >> it feels like we're going through it all over again. we just got to the point where we felt safe leaving the house. >> the prosecutor told rob sanders the man hadn't served enough time to even begin sex offender treatment. >> it shocks the conscience. it's offensive, it's mind boggling how any governor could be this irresponsible.

>> reporter: now there's also a question of political favoritism. >> we have someone who was convicted of killing someone in front of his wife at his home, who pulled the trigger. >> reporter: state lawmakers say they want to investigate this case because the family of the man pardoned raised more than $20,000 last year to help bevin. >> bottom line, if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, you got to look into whether or not it's a duck. >> our thanks to natasha. we'll hand it offer to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> j.b., thank you very much. i appreciate it. it's friday night. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." the big unknown is if the president will control the senate the way he did the republicans in the house. it looks like he just may. the question, how is that okay? you're going to hear from one of the president's closest confidantes and rudy giuliani back at the white house dishing ukraine dirt. and is the plot that set off this whole mess still under way? what do you say, let's get after it.